Philosophy Discussion Forums

Prisons aren't necessary. They never existed at one point, and the purpose of the first "prisons" was reforming the individual who committed an offensive act against society and returning them as functional cog for the community. Today, prisons exist for the sole purpose of making money. They certainly don't reform most individuals, and those who do come pout of prison without intention of going back aren't reformed. They are frightened. The entire legal system is based on punishment rather than reform. Take traffic violations. On the word of one individual, given authority by the state, a driver can be subjected to violations he/she never committed, but in the end, will always lose to the word of the individual with the badge and gun. Now, instead of instructing the said 'automobile offender' how to correct their mistake, money fills that role. And why? Not for the safety of fellow drivers and pedestrians. It's to help pay for all the bs are taxes won't cover. This is the state in which we live in. Not one that cares for its' citizens. Ours (and many modeled after ours) is a country that places wealth well before the welfare of individuals. I won't even begin about the possible privatization of prisons for profit. That takes jobs away from a hurting society as it is, but what do the rich care? We're but slaves to those with enough cash. Why do I say this? Because it is those who need to earn a living which must provide the labor to allow the rich to live the luxurious lifestyles they do. Someone must have a lesser life in order for others to have a more lucrative one.

'Holy Thursday' - by W. Blake

Is this a holy thing to see In a rich and fruitful land, Babes reduced to misery, Fed with cold and usurous hand?

Is that trembling cry a song? Can it be a song of joy? And so many children poor? It is a land of poverty!

And their sun does never shine, And their fields are bleak and bare, And their ways are filled with thorns: It is eternal winter there.

For where'er the sun does shine, And where'er the rain does fall, Babes should never hunger there, Nor poverty the mind appall.

There are 2 groups which will disagree with a world withot prisons: politicians and big criminals, because votes for your political party and the best techniques to commit crimes have prisons as their foundation. Some documentary about a guy who spent most of his life in prison showed him saying: I have learnt nothing in prison, the only thing which it is is the perfect school for learning how to commit crimes.

Didn't have time to read all the post, but wanted to put my spin on it....

Given: Working together, following the rules is what keeps a society safe and organized.

Non-violent Incidental violations or ignorance can be trained... no prison necessary

Non-violent repeat offenses, need a harder hand slap to help shoe horn them into cooperating with the society... no prison necessary

Individuals of violent crime, serious theft, those crimes which seriously disrupt society can not be allowed to trash out safety and order for the many... bottom line... they can not be released back into society... solutions:


Prison, at the cost of the offenders families. Problem, do we let family-less criminals to starve? Would this make us less human?

Prison at the cost of many through taxes

Prison labor camps, not pretty, but has minimal impact to the society. This would work well for a percentage of criminals. This may also be an intermediate place before re-introducing the individual back into society. This option has potential.

Banishment. Problem, some other society has to deal with them. This may work for a small percentage of criminals and societies. Hard to keep said criminal from coming back. Not the best solution.

Banishment to an island. This allows them to feed themselves and not be a burden on another society. This option has potential for worst case criminals.

Capital punishment, least costly, last resort for a stressed society.

I think the decision faced by society is never "is X necessary or not necessary." It is Is X better than the available alternatives. So We have for example the non violent offender who could be in prison or could be outside facing some other restrictions. the question is how effective are these two at achieving the aims (such as low cost, rehabilitation,deterrence etc).

If it turns out it is more effective (as it probably is in general) then good. But there could be cases where it is not more effective. there might be tools one might be able top use to deal with these scenarios but they may not be available for whatever reason.

So we might have national service, financial penalties, physical punishment,social exclusion punishment, social integration rehabilitation programmes, reeducation programmes etc And each might have certain costs and benefits and those costs and benefits may be uncertain and interdependent.

So I am inclined to think that prisons would probably be required somewhere in the mix but that they should be used considerably less often than they currently are.

Take traffic violations. On the word of one individual, given authority by the state, a driver can be subjected to violations he/she never committed, but in the end, will always lose to the word of the individual with the badge and gun.

That is one way of looking at it - but I used to work for a guy - he used to break all sorts of parking rules etc. And he would intimidate the state into backing down when they caught him (with the fact that he new the intricacies of the law and had the ability to fight it out).

So it can be done - it is just that you or I can't do it.

-- Updated November 1st, 2014, 3:02 pm to add the following --

To me national service is a way of hiding the costs.

you make your military less effective (by making it full of unstable people then paying others to babysit those less effective people) then you give those people additional tools for controlling the recruits than they would have with prisoners (you can't just take a bunch of prisoners and make them crawl through mud for hours a day) and then you compare the two.

While I commend the humanitarian angle of your argument, I believe you're neglecting to view the perspective as a whole. One of the most common issues with arguments such as this is that arguing the relevance of prisons, outside the context of the laws they intend to enforce and, more importantly, the social impact those laws are meant to represent and support, is an act of futility.

For instance, take your argument against the imprisonment of those convicted of victimless crimes. Drug possession, while inherently victimless at the point of arrest, has an impact that extends far beyond that individual incarcerated for possession. How is society to curb the negative fallout associated with rampant drug use, without incarcerating all members involved? I agree that a single, functioning drug user looking to possess personal amounts of drugs that they will take responsibly is not likely to create a victim. However, how many drug users does that sound like? What about the user that is a hopeless addict and will do near anything to score their next fix? Even if these types didn't exist and all drug users were responsible, fully functioning citizens, what about the violence and injustice created by the production, transportation and distribution of these drugs? As a society, are we not allowed to legislate morality to some degree?

Same idea with incidental criminals. If we as a society are to allow behavior contrary to law or public safety based on an individual's need, where do we draw a line? If a family is starving, inducing a member to commit theft, how do we start to define the specific allowances and limits to these behaviors? Non-violent theft is acceptable, but violent is not? How do we define "starving", which is the point at which this crime becomes acceptable? Now extend this...is it acceptable to steal a car to get to an interview that may lead to a job that can afford to get your family out of poverty? Let's consider for a moment the person/entity who has been stolen from? Do they not have rights and assurances that their property is protected by law?

These examples can be extended through the length of the original post.

Do we, as a society, imprison people needlessly? Of course we do. Does the current system work? Of course it doesn't. Research recidivism rates for an insight to that topic.

However, we are looking at the end result with this topic. The symptom. It is the underlying cause of these social issues that requires our attention. Otherwise, this is all a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

ABreedApart wrote:While I commend the humanitarian angle of your argument, I believe you're neglecting to view the perspective as a whole. One of the most common issues with arguments such as this is that arguing the relevance of prisons, outside the context of the laws they intend to enforce and, more importantly, the social impact those laws are meant to represent and support, is an act of futility.

For instance, take your argument against the imprisonment of those convicted of victimless crimes. Drug possession, while inherently victimless at the point of arrest, has an impact that extends far beyond that individual incarcerated for possession. How is society to curb the negative fallout associated with rampant drug use, without incarcerating all members involved? I agree that a single, functioning drug user looking to possess personal amounts of drugs that they will take responsibly is not likely to create a victim. However, how many drug users does that sound like? What about the user that is a hopeless addict and will do near anything to score their next fix? Even if these types didn't exist and all drug users were responsible, fully functioning citizens, what about the violence and injustice created by the production, transportation and distribution of these drugs? As a society, are we not allowed to legislate morality to some degree?

These arguments are mostly nonsense. First off, alcohol is much more damaging than drugs, yet alcohol is legal. And why is it legal? Most likely because of the economy or because it's impossible to ban, making alcohol illegal would make it a very lucrative business for criminals, because people want alcohol. As for drugs, criminals will very much like your point of view, because they can make a lot of money out of it if it's illegal, while they won't like it if it becomes legal because they can't earn a lot of money anymore with dealing drugs. Secondly, if drugs were provided by the state, there would not only be a lot of profit for the state, but the police could focus on really dangerous criminals instead of people trying to let some plants grow and you might not know how much money is spent by the gouvernment on countering drugs, while it's in fact a process which can't be stopped, legalizing drugs however would bring in really a lot of money for the gouvernment to spend. You also claim that drugs are bad per se. I 'm not sure, philosophers and poets have in fact used drugs for new ideas, think of Nietzsche for example, he wrote some of his books under the influence of drugs and he in fact contributed to our literature, philosophical world and society with his writings. This is a positive result of drugs use. Like you say people should limit their drugs use, but is making it illegal really needed for that? Last, the drugs which make people agressive are most often the legal ones, provided by the pharmaceutical industry like antipsychotics and it's absurd how people which normally are never agressive committed crimes under the influence of medicines, while the pharma-industry just get's away with it without punishment, while they provide the drugs, they KNOW the risks, and still they provide them and bring our society in danger. In fact, it would be much more logical to make these medicines illegal, than making a drug which might be innocent illegal. It's probably made illegal because the gouvernment thinks that the fines for drugs bring in money, but in fact it costs much more money because of the costs of police, the imprisonment of people using drugs etc.

Same idea with incidental criminals. If we as a society are to allow behavior contrary to law or public safety based on an individual's need, where do we draw a line? If a family is starving, inducing a member to commit theft, how do we start to define the specific allowances and limits to these behaviors? Non-violent theft is acceptable, but violent is not? How do we define "starving", which is the point at which this crime becomes acceptable? Now extend this...is it acceptable to steal a car to get to an interview that may lead to a job that can afford to get your family out of poverty? Let's consider for a moment the person/entity who has been stolen from? Do they not have rights and assurances that their property is protected by law?

Let's assume the person in fact really starves, who is responsible for it? If it's needed for self-preservation, it's a bit too oversimplifying to just say that it's wrong. Why do you accept a person to starve?

Your example with the car is not good, because there are other ways to get to a job like lifting for example and you don't even know if that job will get your family out of povernment. Not a really good argument.

These examples can be extended through the length of the original post.

Do we, as a society, imprison people needlessly? Of course we do. Does the current system work? Of course it doesn't. Research recidivism rates for an insight to that topic.

However, we are looking at the end result with this topic. The symptom. It is the underlying cause of these social issues that requires our attention. Otherwise, this is all a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

I agree with most of this.

Generally imprisonment serves for the discouraging of crime. Drugs, prostitution, and certain religious practices can be controlled, but would complicate the work of the government. All three of these examples can degrade a society depending on the conditions, and how does one police prostitution, drugs and especially religion ? The small variables would create thousands of circumstantial situations and loopholes. Harmful drugs destroy people’s minds and causes violent behaviour. There are VERY FEW drugs that do not eventually harm or cause others to harm. Condoms do not stop all spreading of diseases.

The qualm of the government with drugs and prostitution is that if people start suffering from the consequences all expect the government to aid them. It is expensive to maintain millions of people who “put a gun to their own head.” It always falls on the shoulders of the government to help drug abusers and people suffering from diseases contracted from irresponsible sexual acts. Moreover, sexual irresponsibility ripples out to uninformed people who are practicing it responsibly. It may be employed to a degree of success by law in other countries, but is also a matter of national mentality.

Again with religion if a government, by its judgment, decides that something is harmful it has a right to suppress those activities. It is all too evident what power religion holds. Something may seem peaceful, but does not have long term stability. Again it is the government that has to clean up and deal with the ramifications of spirituality and religion. Also what starts out peaceful and small can become very powerful, and can threaten governments both financially and politically and be degrading to society.

Police long discovered that if petty crimes are more strictly punished more serious crimes decline as well. I agree that mentally ill people should be institutionalized in environments that can help their recovery better. I also agree that “petty crimes” or single offence crimes should be handled with more wisdom; but to relax justice is to send the wrong message to the world and to breed courage into an already brazen and foolish generation.

The figures show clearly that prison is not a deterrent but actually increases criminal behaviour. I agree with G B Shaw that if criminals must be detained for the greater safety we law abiding people should imprison them with apologies and explanation about how we are sorry, we understand all the extenuating circs of the crime but for the greater safety we cannot permit the criminal to be at large.

In the meantime prisons, if they are to have the desired effect on reducing crime, have to stop overcrowding, brutality and bullying, drugs, and deprivation of all else e.g. in-prison education that can improve an individual's chances of becoming free from crime.

I don’t think prisons are just meant for discouragement. As I said it complicates the role of the state to make more divisions for different offences. In the end we may not know where to put who and where they really fit. It also is financially strenuous to look after and create new ideas and treatments. Is there no more onus on the public to stay out of trouble ?

Why should the government bend over backwards to create “the right place” for everyone, (not counting the mentally ill); why should government be charged with more tedious and expensive missions of rehabilitating people, who of many remain wanton to the bitter end ?

I know people personally, who abuse drugs; it causes immense harm to their children. So already someone else is suffering. Her children were already taken away from her once and she beats them violently. Drugs are not just drugs; IMO it’s like putting a bomb in yourself. When it goes off it does not affect only you. The same is true for many other crimes.

Whitedragon wrote:

Why should the government bend over backwards to create “the right place” for everyone, (not counting the mentally ill); why should government be charged with more tedious and expensive missions of rehabilitating people, who of many remain wanton to the bitter end ?

Because criminals are a bloody nuisance so we want stop them committing crimes when they get out.

For the sake of the innocent we need prisons, not all have commited the given offence, and not all have committed an offence just because they wanted to. To put a tramp in prison for being a tramp is a horrendouse crime, as such an innocent would be subjected to those whome he had tried to distance himself from in the first place...the organised criminal aspect of society, who's ultimate aim is to intimidate and feed from the weak. If more of them had been put in prison in the first place, he may never have ended up as a tramp.

Belinda said: “Because criminals are a bloody nuisance so we want stop those committing crimes when they get out.”

That can be done in prisons. By slightly modifying all prisons, they can be divided into wards / sections for people with different offences and different needs. I am sure this could be the case already for some prisons. Apropos, I’ve seen prisons in some countries that are very humane, which look like shrunken five star hotel rooms rather than cells.

WhiteDragon said: “…of many remain wanton to the bitter end ?”

I find it preposterous that government should spend money on buying new property for special cases. My niece is a clinical psychologist and works in prisons. She was threatened by a man she was trying to help there once, these were his words: “I know what care you are driving, watch yourself.” Prisoners are a nuisance indeed. Their lives should be improved and made as simple possible, but not simpler.

“I know what care you are driving, watch yourself.”

I wonder if this criminal was joking. Perhaps he trusted his clinical psychologist enough to make a joke. A pretty poor one, I think, but I know some people think that sarcastic fibs are funny, and maybe he did not regard himself as a scary person. I wonder how she responded.

Anyway, we both agree that prisons are necessary. I believe that prisoners should be allowed to have plenty of books to read, be safe from bullying and introductions to further criminality, get food that will improve their health and not make them hyperactive, get smallish rewards for working, not be overcrowded, have access to adequate health care, and child prisoners should never be mixed with adult prisoners.

I believe that detention in prison is inappropriate for most women criminals who are seldom violent and might have dependent children.

The prison service is very expensive and money would be saved if children were rescued from poverty before they become criminalised.

Belinda said: “I wonder if this criminal was joking. Perhaps he trusted his clinical psychologist enough to make a joke. A pretty poor one, I think, but I know some people think that sarcastic fibs are funny, and maybe he did not regard himself as a scary person. I wonder how she responded.

Anyway, we both agree that prisons are necessary. I believe that prisoners should be allowed to have plenty of books to read, be safe from bullying and introductions to further criminality, get food that will improve their health and not make them hyperactive, get smallish rewards for working, not be overcrowded, have access to adequate health care, and child prisoners should never be mixed with adult prisoners.

I believe that detention in prison is inappropriate for most women criminals who are seldom violent and might have dependent children.

The prison service is very expensive and money would be saved if children were rescued from poverty before they become criminalised.”

I agree on all fronts, especially the mixing of child and adult prison part. I also agree that good media should be provided for the prisoners. I was doing prison community work with the church, and I remember the one man telling me he misses his classical music. There are also some bad habits prisoners pick up by sitting in the sun for example when a task is complete; this is somehow carried on when they are released. So I think prisons should watch their prisoners’ in that regard. There are certain ways prisoners get into dealing with their prison environments, which is hard to shake when released.

As for my niece, the way her mother told it to us was definitely a clear threat, but I don’t suppose this point really matters now, so…

Really interesting discussion. But try to take a step back, and ask what is crime and why do we have so much crime: violence, rape, murder etc? My answer: Do we need prisons? Absolutely not. I would argue that 95% of Crimes that are drug, violent, sexual related, are a direct product of an unequal society. My premise is that human behavior is determined by the surroundings.

Analogy with a bowl and liquid: Like water takes the shape of a bowls form, the human behavior takes form of it´s bowl (Pre-birth stimulation, upbringing, class, social heritage, status, friends, family, country, educational background and etc.) So our societal-frame = general human behavior.

Human nature/nurture debate: Violence, rape, murder, depressions etc. are not a static integrated part of human nature, but a product of certain surroundings forming and creating that behavior. Behavioral science is the key here. We can by re-designing society, reshape humanity.

Read the Spirit Level: All of our present problems are causes by inequality and poverty. Read the book by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett from 2009, called the Spirit Level. It explains why the countries with the lowest rate of crime, violence, rape, low IQ, Drug use, mental disorders are always the countries with highest equality, like Denmark (My country) Sweden, Norway, Japan, Finland, always opposed to USA, UK, Portugal etc.

The last 5% need help, not punishment. We need to get rid of the distorted marked economy and implement democratic de-centralized control with the means of production. Then we still have a chance : ) Will gladly follow this discussion.